Jaiki Bala v. State Of Punjab And Others

[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision:15.06.2015 Smt. Jaiki Bala

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. S.C.Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Punjab.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to re-evaluate her answer sheet as per the sequence of Question Booklet No.1047468 of "D" series (having printing errors) given to her in the examination centre, declare fresh result and also to provide her a copy of the said booklet.

In brief, the petitioner appeared in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) on 09.06.2013 under Roll No.10063971 (Paper-I), held in the Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Mansa from 10:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. in the morning session. She was allegedly given the Question Booklet No.1047468 of series "D". It is alleged that she came to know that 12 questions were repeated in the entire question booklet. It was brought to

[ 2 ] the notice of the Supervisor/Invigilator and requested to replace the same with a fresh Question Booklet of the same series, but in vain. The petitioner has been awarded 84 marks out of 150 and was declared unqualified. It is also alleged that she had moved an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the office of respondent no.2 for getting the same Question Booklet No.1047468 but the said Question Booklet has not been supplied. The petitioner has, thus, submitted that because of the faulty Question Booklet, she could not attempt the questions and has to suffer because of the fault of the respondents. After notice, the respondents have filed the reply in which it is averred that the copy of the Question Booklet No.1047468, received from the concerned outsourcing agency, namely, NYSA Communication Pvt. Ltd.

, has already been supplied to the petitioner with a covering letter dated 15.07.2014 but she had made a false averment in the writ petition that she has not been supplied the said booklet so far. It is also averred that the petitioner had not mentioned in the writ petition that what are those wrong/repeated questions so that the respondents may take necessary action and re-evaluate her answer sheet.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioner has already been supplied the Question Booklet No.1047468 vide letter dated 15.07.2014, therefore, she may make a representation to the respondents highlighting the wrong/repeated questions in the booklet. If such a representation is made within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified

[ 3 ] copy of this order, the respondents shall consider it in accordance with law and decide the same within 15 days thereafter. After the decision is taken by the respondents, copy of the order be also supplied to the petitioner immediately.

Disposed of.

June 15, 2015 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge